Curious Question. All the oil being taken out, but what are we replacing it with?

I'm not sure if it matters, but i was curious. When crude oil is retrieved from the pockets under the ground, what is it we are putting back into the gaps?

If we take too much out from an area, is it not perceivable that we are creating conditions favorable for giant sink holes?

Just a thought.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I'm not sure if it matters, but i was curious. When crude oil is retrieved from the pockets under the ground, what is it we are putting back into the gaps?

Seawater. It's denser than oil, so they pump seawater in, which sinks, occupying the space in the lower half of the cavity, thus pushing oil up. At first, most of what they retrieve is oil (maybe 95% oil, 5% seawater). When the mixture of what they retrieve is around 50% oil 50% seeawater, that signals the imminent collapse of an oil field, and from that point, it's only a matter of time.

energyandcapital.com
Saudi Aramco, the national oil company of Saudi Arabia and Ghawar's operator, is currently injecting a staggering 7 million barrels of sea water per day back into Ghawar in order to prop up pressure.

That's just one oilfield. Sadly, since the world has an unlimited amount of oil, this means the oceans will eventually be pumped dry. Of course we can then explore the newly dried land for more oil.

That's just one oilfield. Sadly, since the world has an unlimited amount of oil, this means the oceans will eventually be pumped dry. Of course we can then explore the newly dried land for more oil.

Isnt that sort of a good thing seeing as the polar caps are melting and all?

[edit on 31-8-2006 by CelticFC]

Originally posted by dbates
That's just one oilfield. Sadly, since the world has an unlimited amount of oil, this means the oceans will eventually be pumped dry. Of course we can then explore the newly dried land for more oil.

It's either a pretty good joke or you've become a convert while i had lunch and a good nights rest. Really need to know what happened!

Stellar

No, I was just being sarcastic. I like CelticFC's follow-up with this solving the ice caps melting problem.

I must admit that Esoteric Teacher has stumbled onto an interesting topic that can be discussed no matter how much oil we believe there to be. I guess if the oil was in a sealed compartment it won't hurt to pump seawater into that chamber. I'm sure there's a whole field of science devoted to this. Will the oil get foamy if we pump in water too quickly? How long does it take for the oil and water to seperate?


I haven't become a believer yet, but Smallpeep's post was an interesting read. It does make you wonder.



[edit on 31-8-2006 by dbates]

that is something i have wondered about from time to time(especially for landlocked fields) would be an environmentalists nightmare if the companies were using fresh water to do this.grey water would do the trick but then it would just be a thin stretch to go to sewage lol(got to dump it somewhere and what better place than out of sight)

How much oil is out there, as yet undiscovered? I have heard two men speak on that topic. Both are well known but presently I can’t recall their names. One is “Matt” somebody, a former employee of Amoco (Std of Indiana) who worked in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s. The other fellow wrote a book explaining his theory called “Peak Oil.” Or some similar title. Both men base their discouraging predictions on the level of oil exploration in the continental United States. The US is the “most” or "best" explored 3 million square miles on the planet.

I think they say over “300,000" exploratory wells have been drilled. Maybe more. The point is, the last major oil field in America was found in the 1940s in Texas. If there was another major oil field out there, it would already have been found. Now, you can believe that or not. If you do, then their dire predictions take on a voice of authority. If you don’t then obviously you will not be as much concerned over when or how soon we will face the post-oil world.

For 3 decades we have had earth satellites doing the basic work in the hunt for oil. There just aren’t any more areas on the earth that meet the geology for oil that have not been explored. Because of plate tectonics, the sea-floor is not over 80 million years old. Most oil is found in strata of earth in the 200-300 million years ago range. Therefore, it follows, there is no oil under the ocean floor. Wait up you say, what about the Gulf of Mexico? The North Sea? South China Sea? OK, OK. But those wells are being drilled in the continental shelf which is overlaid by water, rather deep water, but it is not the ocean floor.

There has not been another oil field like the Ghawar super field in Saudi Arabia since it was found in the 1930s, I believe. Assuming there are no artificial constraints on further exploration and drilling, the consensus is that we ordinary mortals will know (post facto) when we have “peaked” in oil, by the decline in production. Production has risen every year since Colonel Drake hit it big in Titusville, PA, in 1859. When production peaks, we’ll “know” that we have pumped half of the earth's available oil. Although it may have taken us 150 years to reach that point - using the first half - it will take us barely 25 years to use the second half.

At that time the world’s remaining oil will be nationalized, or better, internationalized. To be contributed based on your supply, to be alloted based on your needs.


[edit on 9/25/2006 by donwhite]

Donwhite.... ( not stalking you; yet anyways)

Obviously, No One Knows. Hmm? Maybe It's Not So Obvious?

Actually from what we do know there is absolutely no reason to suspect that oil will run out , or become very 'expensive', in the next 50 years. There is at least a few dozen things that can happen to human 'civilization' ( some would disagree) that are more likely and more destructive than anything peak oil might result had there been any realistic chance of it happening any half century soon.

How much oil is out there, as yet undiscovered? I have heard two men speak on that topic. Both are well known but presently I can’t recall their names. One is “Matt” somebody, a former employee of Amoco (Std of Indiana) who worked in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s.

Matt Simons is actually currently a investment ( apparently a very wealthy one and i think i know why) banker and as you should know their types thrives at creating as much drama and upheaval as they can as that is how they manipulate the markets for massive monetary gain.

The other fellow wrote a book explaining his theory called “Peak Oil.” Or some similar title. Both men base their discouraging predictions on the level of oil exploration in the continental United States. The US is the “most” or "best" explored 3 million square miles on the planet.

Not sure who your talking about here but even thought the USA is the most 'heavily explored region on Earth' people still drill hundreds of thousands of wells a year so one wonders why they would bother doing that if they had not a reasonable expectation of finding at least some oil. If oil really is that scarce does that mean drilling oil wells is so amazingly cheap that you can just drill dry one's most of the time? It hardly makes sense for people to invest in drilling in the USA when there are large parts of the world which are basically unexplored.

I think they say over “300,000" exploratory wells have been drilled. Maybe more. The point is, the last major oil field in America was found in the 1940s in Texas. If there was another major oil field out there, it would already have been found.

This hardly logically follows as it assumes that we actually know and understand just where to look for oil. If one considers the success rate of finding any oil ( not commercial quantities) at all it quickly becomes obvious , at least to me, that there is too much luck and shear guessing involved in this supposed 'science'. They are still finding major oil fields all round the world and it does not make sense to talk about those in terms of how many days worth of oil ( global daily usage) they contain unless you only aim is to scare the bejesus out of the average ignorant citizen of the world. As this is normally their only aim they have been very successful but it has not and will not change the fact that formerly oil poor countries ( Russia were thought to have peaked in 1980 but their now the leading producer in the world )are now finding oil when they were never considered to even have reserves...

Now, you can believe that or not. If you do, then their dire predictions take on a voice of authority. If you don’t then obviously you will not be as much concerned over when or how soon we will face the post-oil world.

Well i am concerned but certainly not because oil might run out soon! What bothers me most is the fact that we are still dependent on oil for transport when we could have long ago moved over to transport based on electricity! Dire predictions have been made about the end of cheap oil ( it's still cheaper than peanut butter and bottled water; go figure) ever since the 60's and yet as recent as the mid-late 90's we had a global oil price collapse ( spot price of 8 USD a barrel with long term contracts being much cheaper) that scared the oil industries pants off! If anything they refuse to invest in infrastructure while the supply is so overwhelming that even slow economic growth can result in a massive over supply and price slump. They know that they could make money more reliably and faster had everyone need peanut butter in the same quantities but since their real business is not really in making money ( it's all about control) this hardly bothers them.

For 3 decades we have had earth satellites doing the basic work in the hunt for oil. There just aren’t any more areas on the earth that meet the geology for oil that have not been explored.

Which is based on the mistaken idea , at least imo, that oil comes from organic matter and not form abiotic sources. To suggest that enough of the Earth has been explored to say that there are no more areas where we could find oil based on our current dogma is imo just plainly false as large areas of the world has not even been touched. I will not even mention that entire countries still float on oil that we have not even begun to exploit to any meaningful extent. Saudi Arabia still has absolutely massive reserves and those numbers are more conservative than the standards used by most of the Western oil giants who clearly have no business interest ( proving a commodity is plentiful beyond a certain strategic time frame is not a sound business strategy) in making know just how much oil they really have to exploit in the long run.

Because of plate tectonics, the sea-floor is not over 80 million years old. Most oil is found in strata of earth in the 200-300 million years ago range. Therefore, it follows, there is no oil under the ocean floor. Wait up you say, what about the Gulf of Mexico? The North Sea? South China Sea? OK, OK. But those wells are being drilled in the continental shelf which is overlaid by water, rather deep water, but it is not the ocean floor.

Since they find entire villages and sea ports at 10 000 feet above sea level ( not to mention streets and cities thousands of feet below the surface) i don't think your argument is valid as it assumes that ocean floors have always been ocean floors and current continents always above water. If oil comes from organic matter and seemingly that long ago it might be just about anywhere as we know many of out current mountain ranges are mere millions of years old. The continents may move slowly on a yearly basis but geological and tectonic upheaval can bring abrupt and massive chances in hours or days creating mountains or submerging large parts of continents.

There has not been another oil field like the Ghawar super field in Saudi Arabia since it was found in the 1930s, I believe.

This is hardly a time for faith and belief so why not check out why you believe that when there is no reason to?

Assuming there are no artificial constraints on further exploration and drilling, the consensus is that we ordinary mortals will know (post facto) when we have “peaked” in oil, by the decline in production.

Once again assumes that demand really regulates supply and that the market can not be and has never been effectively manipulated. We KNOW that diamonds are not in fact very rare and that the major diamond producers in fact hoards the things by the ton just to create a sufficient scarcity so that a profit can in fact be made. If one looks at consumer goods this is the norm and it is surprisingly easy to notice how supply is constricted to create a demand based exclusively on the resulting scarcity. If nothing else we still have a billion people who goes to bed hungry ( not that they have beds but anyways) every night while more and more water and prime land goes towards cultivating cash crops ( non edible but exportable) simply so that some governments can get back money they loaned to dictators who put it all in their Swiss bank accounts. We have starving poor people not because there is a fundamental shortage of resources to feed them with but because our current governmental and international policy need a certain percentage of the world population near enough starvation so that they may be effectively coerced to destroy the wage structure of the coming global community. Workers in the west are already losing their jobs to starving Indonesians who is willing to work for almost nothing because their local village structure was destroyed by cheap food imports thus driving them away from the primary occupation of feeding themselves and their families while selling the surplus for cash enough to buy whatever else they needed for basic survival. The western worker is not only working ever harder to support himself but also actively aiding his government ( by taxes used to subsidise food production with which to destroy third world economies) in it's primary aim of driving down buying power and making the citizen ever more dependent on the government.

Production has risen every year since Colonel Drake hit it big in Titusville, PA, in 1859. When production peaks, we’ll “know” that we have pumped half of the earth's available oil.

And how under Earth ( yes ) will we know when we have reached the half way mark based on production alone? As i indicated earlier we know for a fact that oil companies are artificially restricting the production ( the US bombing of Kuwaiti oil heads in 1991&invasion/occupations/sanctions/puppet governments against numerous oil producing countries) of oil even with their limited means while the US government and it's Western backers actively engage in manipulation of world oil supply on a truly grand scale. How will that average person ( that is largely ignorant of these steps) ever be able to tell when a peak has been reached based solely on production?

Continue

Although it may have taken us 150 years to reach that point - using the first half - it will take us barely 25 years to use the second half.

It could take 250 years to use the other half if we actively used alternative energy sources for transportation so how long it will/might last is very much unrelated to how long it took to use the first half if the supply is truly static.

At that time the world’s remaining oil will be nationalized, or better, internationalized. To be contributed based on your supply, to be alloted based on your needs.

And this is the true aim of taking about peak oil! Our western governments are very unhappy with the fact that we have ever more time for ourselves which we can at least partially allocate to discovering the criminal intent of most governments. Since they know they can not fool all the people all the time with mere propaganda they will always seek to rob you of your time by restricting the flow and energy and thus forcing you to expend every more life energy to maintain the standard of living you have become used to. If we decide to believe in peak oil we will stand idle( or sanction force against others to 'gain' energy for ourselves) while our various governments actively destroy our standard of living and i for one will not indulge their fantasies of a citizen too busy or hungry to care/consider what the future might hold.

Conclusion: When anyone tells you that you must part with standards you have gained by hard work and political activism never take their word for it as true rulers of the world absolutely hates the relatively high standards of living the western worker has achieved by active struggle against the oppression that consists of long dangerous working hours for nothing but a survival wage.

Stellar

posted by StellarX

It could take 250 years to use the other half if we actively used alternative energy sources for transportation so how long it might last is very much unrelated to how long it took to use the first half if the supply is truly static.
[Edited by Don W]

That is so. I estimated 25 years based on no cutting back on current consumption levels. I have no authority for that number, but I wanted to convey the dramatic change in rate of consumption. Then as to now.

China plans to add 20 million cars to today’s 10 million over the next 10 years. America has over 200 million motor vehicles and it grows a few million each year. Every American has a “right” to a hand gun and a car, preferably a SUV. I was looking at a Mercury Mountaineer yesterday, V8 it said, and AWD to avoid getting stuck.

Speaking of getting stuck, we just traded our ‘03 Matrix for a ‘06 Matrix. I wanted to wait for the ‘07 but we share a summer house built on a hillside and due to deterioration of the driveway, our 2 WD ‘03 won’t pull the grade. The ‘06 AWD never kicks up a piece of gravel! I expect the ‘07 is be a new model, as the RAV4 was this year.

And this [nationalization] is the aim of talking about peak oil! Western governments are unhappy with the fact we have ever more time for ourselves which we can at least partially allocate to discovering the criminal intent of most governments.

Well, this is a lot like the conundrum whether the US is a Christian nation - it is not - or a nation of Christians - it is. There are a lot of criminals in our government but it is not a criminal government. Look, the British Parliament of the 1770s was replete with crooks and profiteers, and our First Congress was likewise inhabited by men more interested in what they could take home than in how to advance the nation. Anytime you have people dealing with great wealth belonging to others, you will have theft. OTOH, I believe we should make a conscious effort to minimize theft from the public treasury.

Conclusion: When anyone [says] you must part with [living] standards you have gained by hard work and political activism; never take their word for it as [the] rulers of the world hate the high standards of living the Western worker has achieved against [the] oppression of long dangerous working hours for nothing but a survival wage. Stellar

Bravo! 1848 Revisited! American unions never had social consciousness. I have always believed that was the reason for their premature demise, but it looks to me from here that the unions of Europe which did have lots of social consciousness, have slumped as much as ours. I think working people want to trust their leaders to do right by them, but so often, they are betrayed. Look at Clement Atlee, him a Lord. You don’t get to be a Lord by breaking skulls and when you get bottom line, you have to bust skulls of any scab who wants to cross your picket line. Otherwise, you are more a social club than a labor union! The Spanish Civil War may well have bee th high watermark of labor!



[edit on 9/29/2006 by donwhite]

ot

the reason why unions dropped out of sight is that they've been subverted. imagine collecting money for strike funds, imagine investing that money somehow, you'll end up with a bank.

Banks are a dangerous playground, especially for people whose tendency is (should be) to oppose the latest extortion craze in the name of progress....

/ot

posted by StellarX

“ . . from what we know there is no reason to suspect oil will run out, or become very 'expensive' in the next 50 years. Not sure who your talking about here [ - M. King Hubbert - ] but even though the USA is the most 'heavily explored region on Earth' people still drill hundreds of thousands of wells a year . . It hardly makes sense to invest in drilling in the USA when there are large parts of the world which are basically unexplored.” [Edited by Don W]

Did you mean “100s OR 1000s” of exploratory wells? It seems “100s OF 1000s” is too many. Productive oil wells in America go deeper every decade. I think we’re well below 10,000 feet today in new productive wells. Whereas (I believe) Saudi Arabia wells may be mostly around 3,000 feet deep.

“ . . the success rate of finding oil . . becomes obvious to me, there is much luck and sheer guessing in this supposed 'science' . . They still find major oil fields all round the world . . it does not make sense to talk of how many days of oil they contain unless your aim is to scare the bejesus out of the average citizen . . this is their aim [and] they have been very successful . . it will not change the fact that formerly oil poor countries are now finding oil when they were never considered to even have reserves

This is interesting. The recent discovery in the Gulf of Mexico involved drilling in deep water - excess of 10,000 feet - and the well itself was a deep well. The drilling tower itself cost nearly a billion dollars but it is useable for many years. I have said all that to say this, I believe it is possible to locate areas “more likely” to have oil as distinguished from areas where it is “less likely.”

I am concerned but not because oil might run out soon! What bothers me most is the fact that we are still dependent on oil for transport when we could have long ago moved over to transport based on electricity!

Yes. It looks to me that currently we would be best served by nuclear powered generating plants, and hybrid cars. All electric cars seem to be too limited in range - 70 miles - and require fairly long re-charge times. I am skeptical about capacitor technology because my old AF radar school explained that capacitors are great at storing volts but not so good at storing amps. And raw electric power is amps not volts.

“ . . the [petroleum industry] refuses to invest in infrastructure while the supply is so overwhelming . . even slow economic growth can result in a massive over supply and price slump. They could make money faster had everyone need peanut butter in the same quantities . . “

As long as we - the consuming public - permit the sellers to set policy, it will remain as it is or get worse - from our perspective. Current large price fluctuations are blamed on “speculators” in the spot market. That practice represents an infringement on the “free market” concept that I’d like to try to fix. For example, prohibit the re-sale of crude oil in less that 30 days. Probably 7 days delay would work as well. Fungible? No problem. Not in this day and age of bar codes and RFID to label every barge or ship or pipeline load.

“ . . [satellite exploration] is based on the mistaken idea, IMO, that oil comes from organic matter and not from abiotic sources. To suggest that enough of the Earth has been explored to say that there are no more areas where we could find oil is IMO plainly false as large areas of the world has not even been touched.

You enjoy a good rep with me SX, but I’m not sure I can accept your optimistic POV. You’d think by now there would be a consensus on the origin of crude oil. Are you aware why that is not the case?

Saudi Arabia still has absolutely massive reserves . . Western oil giants clearly have no business interest proving a commodity is plentiful beyond a certain time frame . . is not a sound business strategy in making [it] known just how much oil they really have . . “

I do understand that. OTOH, I find it incredible that so many otherwise good men would lie about this issue of how much oil is in the Persian Gulf.

If oil comes from organic matter it might be just about anywhere as we know many of out current mountain ranges are mere millions of years old. This is hardly a time for faith and belief so why not check out why you believe that when there is no reason to?

In particular, I have lived most of the United States model. In general I love geology and science and people who seem to be well informed on those topics have my confidence as a given. I believe them because it sounds reasonable and is consistent with what I have learned elsewhere. I understand none of that makes it true.

Once again assumes demand really regulates supply and the market can not be and has never been effectively manipulated. We KNOW that diamonds are not in fact very rare and that the major diamond producers in fact hoards the things by the ton just to create a sufficient scarcity so that a profit can in fact be made.

Well, I just finished complaining of speculators manipulating the spot market so I cannot consistently now deny that our markets are not manipulated, can I?

“ . . we still have a billion people who go to bed hungry (not that they have beds) every night while more water and prime land goes towards cultivating cash crops (non edible but exportable) simply so some governments can get back money they loaned to dictators who put it all in their Swiss bank accounts.

I know. I’m just lucky to have been born where I was born and not in one of those many places you described. Pure luck.

We have starving poor people because our current governmental and international policy need a certain percentage of the world’s population near enough to starvation so that they may effectively destroy the wage structure of the global community.

Yes. That I also believe.

The western worker is not only working ever harder to support himself but also actively aiding his government (by taxes used to subsidize food production with which to destroy third world economies) in it's primary aim of driving down buying power and making the citizen ever more dependent on the government.

Exactly.

And how will we know when we have reached the half way mark based on production alone?

It’s a theory based on 2 assumptions. 1, that production will always be maximized and 2, that no oil is being held back.

“ . . the US government and it's Western backers actively engage in manipulation of world oil supply on a truly grand scale. How will that average person who is largely ignorant of these steps ever be able to tell when a peak has been reached based solely on production?

Plainly, as you set it out, they will not be able to tell or know.

Thanks for you good comments StellarX.

.

...about what might happen when we put something different into the earth's holes, pockets, and chambers, or change the composition of oilsands.

Who knows?

And if they did, do you really think they'd tell us?




But sink holes sound about right, plus creating lenses to amplify and direct soundwaves that might trigger earthquakes.

Also, did you know that the land mass over the underground Colorado River has been sinking steadily since the water has been taken for irrigation? And it's a problem? Or that Baja California has no water because the Colorado is pretty much dry?

Originally posted by donwhite
That is so. I estimated 25 years based on no cutting back on current consumption levels. I have no authority for that number, but I wanted to convey the dramatic change in rate of consumption. Then as to now.

Well let me , possibly, refresh your memory since i have posted this on ATS before.

Some select points from a recent BBC Hardtalk interview between
DR Adnan Shihab Eldin (OPEC’s Acting Secretary General and Director of the Research Division) and Stephen Sackur. Reading the full text will be most informative.

"SS - And my point is that you seem to have lost control of your ability to control the price.

DR SE - No. We have not, because we have done what it takes to influence the price and that is to ensure that there are enough supplies in the market that the buyers of the oil will find the oil to buy. In 2004 when demand grew by close to 3 million barrels a day OPEC pumped 3.5 million barrels extra oil and ensured that there was a surplus in the market in 2004. Now that surplus should normally have allowed prices to find a reasonable regime."

SS- (INTERUPTS) Well, you know how much oil is in the ground..

Dr SE - Yes, and we don't believe there is a problem for the next 30, 40 years. That's plenty long enough time for countries to look for alternatives.

SS- Is it really? 30 or 40 years. Think back to 1975. That's 30 years ago. We haven't shown any great ability to change the way we rely on fossil fuels in the last 30 years.

Dr SE - That's not 30 or 40 years to run out of oil. That's 30 or 40 years to look at alternatives. Oil will be with us much longer than that. Just like coal has been around for so many centuries. So oil is not expected to run out in 30 or 40 years, I'm just saying that the peak in production will not be reached in 30 or 40 years. That gives us another maybe 30 or 40 years.

Now at the end of the day we will not run out of the last barrel of oil - that will never happen - but oil will begin to make way for other more available energy sources that will be discovered and developed for the benefit of all of humanity. We encourage that. We have nothing to stand against it because it is in the interests of everybody. "

news.bbc.co.uk...

China plans to add 20 million cars to today’s 10 million over the next 10 years. America has over 200 million motor vehicles and it grows a few million each year. Every American has a “right” to a hand gun and a car, preferably a SUV. I was looking at a Mercury Mountaineer yesterday, V8 it said, and AWD to avoid getting stuck.

Well i am pretty sure now that there will be shortages of gasoline but if you read the complete article i mentioned above i think you will find that DR Adnan Shihab Eldin is correct when he states these rises in demand can be supported had government regulations allowed industry to expand to meet demand.

Speaking of getting stuck, we just traded our ‘03 Matrix for a ‘06 Matrix. I wanted to wait for the ‘07 but we share a summer house built on a hillside and due to deterioration of the driveway, our 2 WD ‘03 won’t pull the grade. The ‘06 AWD never kicks up a piece of gravel! I expect the ‘07 is be a new model, as the RAV4 was this year.

Glad to see the American dream is not dead/dying for everyone.

Well, this is a lot like the conundrum whether the US is a Christian nation - it is not - or a nation of Christians - it is. There are a lot of criminals in our government but it is not a criminal government. Look, the British Parliament of the 1770s was replete with crooks and profiteers, and our First Congress was likewise inhabited by men more interested in what they could take home than in how to advance the nation.

Some still considering the founding fathers a merry gang of hero's but apparently all they were interested in was generally guaranteeing their own wealth, standing and independence from foreign control over their wealth; whatever freedoms that resulted in for the general public was evidently quite coincidental...

Anytime you have people dealing with great wealth belonging to others, you will have theft. OTOH, I believe we should make a conscious effort to minimize theft from the public treasury.

I do not believe this has to be the case as good accounting can easily prevent theft of the sums we have grown accustomed to accepting as ' the cost of bureaucracy'. Fact is ,imo, that governments do not mind their lackeys ( since the ruling party tends to draw in their friends and supporters) feeding from the public trough and as long as these minor/major officials remember to stay loyal and put some of the money back into the party machine they will be left alone.

Bravo! 1848 Revisited! American unions never had social consciousness.

I think Americans had pretty damn decent living standards in the 50's with a peak probably in the early 60's before the stagnation ( early 70's ) and then slow decline from the middle late 70's up to the current sorry state. I think the American Unions had it very hard in the late 19th century and early 20th century with suppression measures that western European governments would not even have dared try ( look at Hitler's relative benign treatment of the average German worker) on their civilians at that late time so i don't think it's fair to say that about them when they still managed that with the support of the American workers.... What is obvious is that American living standards have declined in lock step with the demise of American labour movements/unions and one can look at the Scandinavian example to see how effective unions can be when governments lack the will or capacity to actively suppress or destroy them....

I have always believed that was the reason for their premature demise, but it looks to me from here that the unions of Europe which did have lots of social consciousness, have slumped as much as ours.

As i said above European Unions are massively stronger and better organized than American unions and one can see it reflected in their Higher general living standards. If one looks at British unions it's obvious that Maggie's 'metal pipe to the head' treatment of them have led to a fast paced decline in wages and a massive rise in poverty and general decline in social order...

I think working people want to trust their leaders to do right by them, but so often, they are betrayed. Look at Clement Atlee, him a Lord.

I agree but i think the real issue is how much people want to believe that voting for the 'right' things that are said are enough in a democracy. That being said i am pretty sure that French citizens may occasionally spend the hour or two they work less than those in Britain thinking about how to press their government to give them another hour a day off... Government always aim to steal your time and energy as they know that taking a big enough chunk of it will leave you scrambling to survive day to day instead of investing energy in creating a better next month or year...

The artificial creation of poverty and ever longer working hours ( Americans now work on average the longest hours in the the industrialized developed western world) is all about trying to get us out of the business of democracy and into the business of desperate survival. If people were stupider and our social fabric weaker we might very well all have still been 'down in the mines'. A favorite tactic is obviously to try subvert labour union leaders by various measures including giving them title's and wealth with which to distract them from their primary ( well we pray) aim of fighting for social justice.

You don’t get to be a Lord by breaking skulls and when you get bottom line, you have to bust skulls of any scab who wants to cross your picket line.

I have never understood why unions indulge in this sort of behaviour at all but as far as i can tell this sort of thing is hyped by the media to give unions a bad name...

Otherwise, you are more a social club than a labor union! The Spanish Civil War may well have bee th high watermark of labor!

The Spanish civil war was a desperate attempt after a long sustained effort but it failed as these things normally fail when you pick up the guns to try shoot it out with those who love getting added excuses to kill off those who demand social justice. I'm all for guns ( if every person on the planet had the gun of their choice and as much ammunition as they wanted) but not in the social revolutionary sense of it. I like the following quote as description of what they really contribute...

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk."

-Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967)

I have not looked up this quote and since some quotes by the founding fathers seem quite suspect i cant vouch for the accuracy as much as admitting to sharing the same sentiments.

Stellar

posted by StellarX

". . Some still consider the founding fathers as a merry gang of hero's but apparently all they were interested in was generally guaranteeing their own wealth, standing and independence from foreign control over their wealth; whatever freedoms that resulted in for the general public was evidently quite coincidental . . “ StellarX [Edited by Don W]

I am not into America bashing. I have, however, had an epiphany. Or, an eureka moment! It began when I had it stressed to me that the colonialists had always regarded themselves as Englishmen and to possess the rights of Englishmen. In tact, that was one of the reasons they objected to the Stamp Act. It violated the rights of Englishmen. As a factual matter, the people over here were freer than the people in the British Isles.

I think it was all about land. You know from history that by the late middle ages, all the land in Europe was taken by the nobility or by the clergy. But herein America, there was more land than anyone could imagine. And much of it good land. Well watered. Fertile. With great stands of trees. Most of the classical furniture made in Europe from the 1600s to the 1900s was made using American wood. The books say the Eastern US had the largest hardwood forest in the world.

So, as you mention, it was an effort to exclude the Old Country from this bonanza. It’s my observation there was nothing revolutionary about the War of 1775-1783. It was in reality a coup d’etat.

In reading up on this topic, I learned that sea water injection is only necessary in unhealthy oil fields, or to increase production (barrels per day output).

You musn't think about wells as being huge underground caves filled with oil, (same goes for water wells). The oil is basically hanging in porous rocks, and travels through cracks and fissures in the rock to the well pipe.

The injection of sea water is only used when a field is nearing the end of it's servicable life, and happens at the perimeter of fields to increase pressure in the porous rocks. The water pushes the oil through the rock at a faster rate, thus seemingly increasing production. However, the salt water corrodes the infastructure quickly, plus there's a "water cut" with the oil output that needs to be seperated prior to shipment.

We don't need to replace oil in the ground with anything, rock is already there.

"LIGHT SWEET" CRUDE is just about all gone...

Refineries are having to upgrade their systems to deal with the only oil that's left, the heavier, lower quality oil, with alot more impurities than light sweet crude.

I received this email this AM from a friend in South Korea. I do no know whether it is a joke or is true. I know well the person who sent it and I have great reliance on their veracity and integrity. Because oil consumption is so close to oil production, any serious interruption in the supply of oil or even the expectation of such an interruption will result in speculators driving the spot price of crude to new heights. I hope this is a bad joke.

Oct 5, 2006 4:25 AM

Latest Statement from MEND (Movement for the Emancipation of the Nigerian Delta)

At about 1700 hrs today, Thursday October 4, 2006, our units dispatched to protect communities in Rivers State were attacked by 9 gunboats and one helicopter gunship belonging to the Nigerian army.

In the ensuing firefight which lasted about one and a half hours, our units captured 2 gunboats, killing all occupants, 9 soldiers. The remnant of the military assault team was beaten into a retreat and carried back many dead and seriously injured, number of which has yet to be ascertained.

Our presence in Rivers State is being beefed up by about 500 fighters which had earlier been dispatched and will be in Rivers State by nightfall. As it seems, we are being forced act ahead of our planned major strike on the Nigerian oil industry. Operators of facilities in Rivers State are advised to evacuate their staff from such locations with immediate effect. For long, we have advertised that we will no longer take hostages in attacks on oil installations. We will not go back on that pledge.

In addition, we will commence with a number of strategic attacks on targets of relevance. This will commence with effect from today and will increase in severity depending on the response from the Nigerian military.

Bonny Island
River State,
Nigeria
END

[edit on 10/6/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by cryingindian
In reading up on this topic, I learned that sea water injection is only necessary in unhealthy oil fields, or to increase production (barrels per day output).

Why is it according to you only required in unhealthy reservoirs? Is it not true that reservoirs can only be tapped to 30% of their capacity without water injection? Water injection is thus nothing but a accepted method of getting to oil we do not otherwise have access to.

You musn't think about wells as being huge underground caves filled with oil, (same goes for water wells). The oil is basically hanging in porous rocks, and travels through cracks and fissures in the rock to the well pipe.

Mostly right....

The injection of sea water is only used when a field is nearing the end of it's servicable life, and happens at the perimeter of fields to increase pressure in the porous rocks.

This is not true.

The water pushes the oil through the rock at a faster rate, thus seemingly increasing production.

It does increase production by later in the life of the oil field but what crime is there in that? The water provides pressure in the field ( since oil floats on water) thus making it possible to extract oil in the field that could otherwise not be reached. Did we stop mining resources because it become harder or did we simply figure out new ways of reaching it?

However, the salt water corrodes the infastructure quickly, plus there's a "water cut" with the oil output that needs to be seperated prior to shipment.

The Saudis can still manage to get a barrel of oil above ground at 50 odd US cents so how devastating is water injection exactly? As i understand much of or most of the water is produced from the wells anyways so there is so sea salt involved anyways.

We don't need to replace oil in the ground with anything, rock is already there.

"LIGHT SWEET" CRUDE is just about all gone...

Light Sweet crude is not anywhere near gone as is clear from the cheap production costs in at least a few countries. Light sweet crude are certainly scarcer but Saudi Arabia could certainly produce far more of it had there been enough demand.

Refineries are having to upgrade their systems to deal with the only oil that's left, the heavier, lower quality oil, with alot more impurities than light sweet crude.

Actually refineries are being upgraded and expanded mostly because new refineries are not being built and it's pointless not to give them these capacities.

Stellar

Originally posted by donwhite
Did you mean “100s OR 1000s” of exploratory wells? It seems “100s OF 1000s” is too many

Well i said 'hundreds of thousands' but i meant for wells overall and when i went back to look the world total is somewhere between 100 - 200 thousand a year with 850 odd thousand wells in operation last year.

Productive oil wells in America go deeper every decade. I think we’re well below 10,000 feet today in new productive wells. Whereas (I believe) Saudi Arabia wells may be mostly around 3,000 feet deep.

www.eia.doe.gov... and as far as i remember the norm is still below the US average of 6 k feet.

This is interesting. The recent discovery in the Gulf of Mexico involved drilling in deep water - excess of 10,000 feet - and the well itself was a deep well. The drilling tower itself cost nearly a billion dollars but it is useable for many years. I have said all that to say this, I believe it is possible to locate areas “more likely” to have oil as distinguished from areas where it is “less likely.”

Well that is surely so and what i tried to indicate was that there is still a great many dry holes ( not commercially viable) being drilled every year and that our advancing knowledge of tectonics and such does not seem to be increasing the success margin by any great degree...

Yes. It looks to me that currently we would be best served by nuclear powered generating plants, and hybrid cars. All electric cars seem to be too limited in range - 70 miles - and require fairly long re-charge times.

en.wikipedia.org...

I would say that it was in fact very practical for the suburban working person and certainly not overly expensive ( considering the limited production numbers and general GM intransigence) when adding the relatively cheap maintenance.

I am skeptical about capacitor technology because my old AF radar school explained that capacitors are great at storing volts but not so good at storing amps. And raw electric power is amps not volts.

Well skepticism is always a good thing as long does not reserve it strictly for things one does not already know about....

As long as we - the consuming public - permit the sellers to set policy, it will remain as it is or get worse - from our perspective. Current large price fluctuations are blamed on “speculators” in the spot market. That practice represents an infringement on the “free market” concept that I’d like to try to fix. For example, prohibit the re-sale of crude oil in less that 30 days. Probably 7 days delay would work as well. Fungible? No problem. Not in this day and age of bar codes and RFID to label every barge or ship or pipeline load.

Sounds like solid ideas to me as and as long as their choosing to keep all the wonderful alternatives from us we should at least force them to stop manipulating this one to such a great degree.

You enjoy a good rep with me SX, but I’m not sure I can accept your optimistic POV.

Well i certainly do not expect you to simple trust me this time because you have liked what i had to say in the past! I am very optimistic about the future ( such great technologies just beyond view of the general public) and while it might get far worse before it gets better that sorta thing does not discourage me. I have posted extensively on the abiotic versus biotic question in the past but that is a huge area and probably best discussed elsewhere...

You’d think by now there would be a consensus on the origin of crude oil. Are you aware why that is not the case?

There is a consensus all over the world that oil does indeed come from biotic sources but as with all scientific questions consensus is rarely a indication of objective reality. If oil comes from organic material only that means very little or non is produced now thus making the resources 'scarce' and subject to ever higher prices; that's why they will defend the biotic theory for however long they can.

I do understand that. OTOH, I find it incredible that so many otherwise good men would lie about this issue of how much oil is in the Persian Gulf.

It's not a question of lying as much as it is one of simply not talking about the issue; people know how to keep their jobs and reputations and it's not a question that comes up regularly or at all. The men who are lying about ME oil are not 'good' by any stretch of the imagination and they are very rarely the people actually working the field or doing the research; the rest know their place and will just say whatever whoever is paying them to say. The Saudi proven reserved are now well over a trillion barrels ( proven to higher standards than is commonly required in the West) and if you ask me that is still relatively conservative.

icular, I have lived most of the United States model. In general I love geology and science and people who seem to be well informed on those topics have my confidence as a given. I believe them because it sounds reasonable and is consistent with what I have learned elsewhere. I understand none of that makes it true.

I will never ever suggest that you just take my word on this and you have every right to be skeptical considering what this all means if as true as i believe ( and can prove imo) it to be. If can show you where the rabbit hole starts but i'm not going to push you in.

Well ijust finished complaining of speculators manipulating the spot market so I cannot consistently now deny that our markets are not manipulated, can I?

Well i think most people understand deep down that rich people mess with the prices but just lack the knowledge to understand the scale of it and how it directly affects their day to day lives...

[quot]I’m just lucky to have been born where I was born and not in one of those many places you described. Pure luck.

Lucky in where you were born but we should not forget that it was normally the sacrifice of those who came before us ( in those lucky countries) that brought about lucky places to be born in.

Yes. That I also believe.

Pretty surprising thing to have sorted out and imo a great place from ( assuming you have researched how they can manage doing that) which to investigate what is currently happening and what sort of future they want for us.

Exactly.

Did'nt know this was common knowledge and i guess it's time to start digging deeper.

It’s a theory based on 2 assumptions. 1, that production will always be maximized and 2, that no oil is being held back.

And if the market really decided these issues we really should not have any problems but from past conduct it's evident that markets sometimes create supply without demand being in evidence and sometimes refuses to create supply despite overwhelming demand. If we could have true unrestricted markets ( but each nation should be able to regulate imports and exports however they see fit without intimidation, which is obviously not a simply thing to manage) this world could be turned into a paradise planet capable of supporting hundreds of billions in the type of luxury now reserve for a few hundred thousand.

Plainly, as you set it out, they will not be able to tell or know.

Thanks for you good comments StellarX.

And while people work long hours just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads ( the standards are obviously far higher in the west but life is as hurried) they will never have the time to figure out what is going on and i believe that is another primary reason for keeping people living right on the edge...

Stellar